temu_category_search

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers extensively. It discloses defaults (US site 48), fuzzy search behavior, sorting conventions (totalSold/dsr), interpretation caveats (blue-ocean index must be cross-validated, period fields are deltas and may be negative, growth rates use decimals), pagination sampling, and a strict linkUrl display rule. This goes far beyond a simple read/write hint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but dense, with every sentence carrying meaningful operational guidance. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though a bulleted or sectioned format could improve scannability. The front-loaded purpose sentence ensures quick orientation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite no annotations and a top-level schema with no description, this description is highly complete. It covers site selection, search strategy, sorting logic, data validation, pagination caveats, and output display requirements. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be documented, and this description fills all other important gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is reported as 0% at the top level, so the description must compensate. It does explain key semantics for several parameters: parentCatId only when trusted, sorting fields (totalSold, dsr, monthSoldRate, monthSalesRate), the decimal format for rates, and negative values for count deltas. While it does not enumerate every filter, it provides essential usage guidance for the most consequential fields, though a bit more explicit mapping to parameter names would be ideal.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool searches Temu category names, category levels, or direct subcategories, and explicitly lists its purposes: obtaining credible category IDs, confirming full paths, and researching market capacity, demand growth, supply, and entry opportunities. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning that trusted IDs can be passed to goods, mall, or keyword tools, and that other countries require the site tool first.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: for category research and ID retrieval, with specific alternative instructions (e.g., 'other countries first call the site tool'). It also provides exclusion criteria, such as not restricting to level 3/4 unless the user requests, and not guessing parentCatId, which clarifies how to use the tool correctly versus other search tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.